THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 27, 1996 TAG: 9610250052
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 33 lines
As a graduate of a private women's college in the Northeast and the sister of a Virginia Military Institute alum, I have followed with more than a passing interest the (mostly) negative comments about the Supreme Court's VMI decision. Ray Tyson's letter (Sept. 24) finally impelled me to comment.
Contrary to Mr. Tyson's assertion, neither Justice Ginsburg nor the Supreme Court enacted the equal-protection concept underlying the decision. The states amended the Constitution to provide it, and our elected representatives enacted legislation forbidding discrimination based on gender, race and a number of other characteristics. The Supreme Court did, in fact, enforce the Constitution and the law of the land with its VMI decision.
Second, I applaud Mr. Tyson for discerning that the real issue is whether our tax dollars, paid by both men and women, may be used to support an activity that bars women solely because of their gender and without reference to their character, ability or anything else. What a demeaning, and insulting, concept!
Third, Mr. Tyson's suggestion that a ``70-ish woman'' with no personal military background is somehow unqualified to write a judicial opinion involving discipline and respect, despite her distinguished career as an attorney and jurist, gives the lie to his earlier remarks suggesting he considers women to be his true equals. Perhaps Mr. Tyson should look at the resumes of the other Supreme Court justices, most of whom are men, to determine how many of them have ``worn the uniform.'' Does that relegate them also to some lower rung on the ladder of ``qualified'' people?
ELLEN C. CARLSON
Virginia Beach, Oct. 14, 1996 by CNB